mudcat.org: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: history of USA Presidential elections...

Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 01:03 AM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 01:13 AM
Riginslinger 31 Aug 07 - 07:11 AM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 01:07 PM
jeffp 31 Aug 07 - 01:08 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 01:39 PM
Riginslinger 31 Aug 07 - 01:51 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 02:18 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 04:20 PM
Rapparee 31 Aug 07 - 04:27 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 04:38 PM
Rapparee 31 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM
katlaughing 31 Aug 07 - 05:29 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 05:51 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Aug 07 - 06:20 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 31 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 07:30 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 31 Aug 07 - 08:31 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 08:54 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 31 Aug 07 - 09:26 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 31 Aug 07 - 09:57 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 11:08 PM
Little Hawk 31 Aug 07 - 11:24 PM
Riginslinger 01 Sep 07 - 09:08 AM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM
pdq 01 Sep 07 - 02:29 PM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 07 - 02:52 PM
pdq 01 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 07 - 08:12 PM
pdq 01 Sep 07 - 08:19 PM
Bobert 01 Sep 07 - 08:28 PM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 07 - 08:42 PM
Bobert 01 Sep 07 - 09:14 PM
Riginslinger 01 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM
Bobert 02 Sep 07 - 11:22 AM
Riginslinger 02 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM
Bobert 02 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM
Riginslinger 02 Sep 07 - 11:51 AM
Bobert 02 Sep 07 - 12:46 PM
Little Hawk 02 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM
Riginslinger 02 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 12:59 AM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 07:04 AM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 07:30 AM
Bobert 03 Sep 07 - 08:10 AM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,Pete Peterson 03 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 03:37 PM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:03 AM

This is really interesting! The site has a summary of all the American presidential elections from 1792 on. Click on the year to get the summary. Several of the early ones were not even contested! They were more like coronations than elections. In some of them certain of the electors voted differently than their constituents had authorized them to, thus failing to represent the views of the people! There's some very surprising stuff as one goes through it year by year.

Entire history of all USA presidential elections


There were also no political parties at the beginning, so it wasn't a choice between parties at all, but between individuals who were selected from among their peers (the top politicians of the day).

Parties came along soon enough, though. The Federalist Party was a major player early on, but fell into disfavour after a few elections and then vanished altogether. Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republicans (how about that?) were an early challenger to the Federalists, and eventually drove the Federalists from the stage entirely. They became what we now know as the Democratic Party. The Republican Party of today did not have its beginnings until 1854, and their time in power began with Abraham Lincoln.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:13 AM

Here's another fascinating thing. Go to the year on each succeeding election and take a look at which areas of the country voted for which party. The situation has completely reversed itself like a virtual mirror image! New England and the Northwest used to vote consistently Republican...they now vote Democratic. The South used to vote consistently Democratic...it now votes Republican.

The fortunes of the different parties have changed radically from one era to another, as have the loyalties of different regions of the country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:11 AM

If I remember right, when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act, he made the statement that, in so doing, he was condemning the south to Republican rule for generations to come.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:07 PM

Yes. Prior to that the Deep South had voted Democratic with almost total consistency (given that the Republicans were the hated "party of Lincoln"). The results of the 1968 election are really fascinating. Most of the Deep South went to Wallace and the Independent Party who opposed desegregation! It was a rare case of a third party making serious inroads in the electoral results.

Here's the map of which states were taken by whom in '68:

1968 election results by state

The Democrats did well in the industrial northeast, state of Washington, and Texas, oddly enough. Wallace took Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arkansas! Nixon did well everywhere else, and that was enough to win it for him.

I can't help but wonder if Wallace got shot because he was fucking around with the political status quo in America too much? He took a lot of votes away from Nixon in '68, and that almost allowed the Democrats to win the election.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: jeffp
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:08 PM

Arthur Bremer, who shot Wallace, will be getting out of prison soon. You could ask him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:39 PM

(I doubt that he would tell me. The official record says he shot Wallace simply because he wanted to be famous. They say he was figuring to shoot either Nixon or Wallace, but he had a chance at Wallace, so he took it. Whether this is all true...who knows? I certainly can't say if I do.)

Anyway..... This is incredible! Look at the results of the crucial 1860 election, just before the Civil War. 4 parties, 4 candidates for President. Lincoln wins with the Republicans because the other 3 parties basically split their share of the vote between themselves while the Republicans walk away with the prize.

As usual in the USA system when there are more than 2 parties in the race, the main party that has no competing lesser party that would tend to steal some of its votes wins. This is not very reflective of the overall wishes of the majority of electorate...in fact, it is quite the contrary. A minority view defeats the majority, and forms the government.

The vital thing to do if you want to win an election in the USA or Canada is to make sure that your general constituency (assuming it's a large one) is united, and is not split into 2 or more parties.

This goes directly against the genuine workings of what can properly be termed "representative democracy" and it allows minority viewpoints to establish majority governments. The Republicans are well aware of this, and that is why they cynically arrange for their friends to make campaign contributions to outfits like the Green Party. ;-) They know it will take votes away from the Democrats.

What the Democrats clearly need to do is somehow find a rabidly right wing 3rd or 4rth party that makes the Republicans look liberal and godless in comparison...!!! Call it the "Liberty Party". Then syphon lots of Democratic money quietly to the Liberty Party, and the Republicans will go down like the Titanic, only faster...Heh!

It's not a good way of setting up elections if you want a real democracy. It is a good way of maintaining the power of well-organized and cleverly managed political oligarchies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:51 PM

The Republicans and the Democrats didn't have any trouble getting together to make sure Jesse Ventura would never be able to run for a second term as governor of Minnesota.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:18 PM

Yep. Gotta preserve the status quo, which is a permanently ruling duopoly, split into 2 leagues. Just like the big leagues with 2 competing sets of baseball teams. The team that finally wins the playoffs at the end of the 4 year season (Will it be...The powerful Hillarys? The surprising Obamas? The stalwart Julianis? Or...?) gets the bonuses and the glory. The league stays profitable and in power regardless of who wins. The public foots the bill, and hopefully is entertained in the process. The league's owners cash in and party at places like Bohemian Grove.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:20 PM

Another fascinating map: the states won in the 1904 election:

1904 election results by state

In this case a very popular and charismatic Teddy Roosevelt, the Spanish-American War hero, ran for the Republicans and easily beat the Democrat, Alton Parker. There were also 3rd and 4rth parties and presidential candidates in that race, but they took very few votes away from the Big Two.

Note how in 1904 the Democratic Party still owned the South. Roosevelt took everthing else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:27 PM

You make a common mistake, LH, in assuming the US is a Democracy. It is not and never was. It is a Republic, a completely different form of government.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM

That's a bit like saying: "You make a common mistake, LH, in assuming the camel is a mammal. It is not and never was. It is a vertebrate, a completely different form of creature."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:38 PM

I assume it's an oligarchy. ;-) I know it's not a democracy. As for republics, they may or may not be democratic, right?

The USA was often referred to as "The Arsenal of Democracy" in WWII, was it not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM

By FDR, who started using "Democracy" because it was thought that saying "Republic" was too close to "Republican."

Not even Athens was a pure Democracy. In fact, I don't know of one past or present.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:29 PM

Ah, 1968...the Rocky Mtn. West WAS solidly Democratic just like I remember!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:51 PM

Ah, yes, Rap, but finding a totally "pure" democracy is like trying to find a totally pure woman....or a totally humble Texan...or a totally selfless moneylender...

It is not absolute purity we require for good government...just a certain measure of honesty and public responsibility, combined with a reasonably representative system and a good bill of rights.

Go back and check through the election results, state by state, year by year, right from 1792. It's really very interesting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:20 PM

But democracy doesn't necessarily imply good government, just that the government is in line with what people actually want. Which sometimes isn't at all pleasant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM

Democracy: The bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.

Oscar Wilde


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:30 PM

"You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half for you." - Boss Tweed in the movie 'Gangs of New York', which provides some chilling insights into the nature of New York politics and inner city gangs in a brash young republic around the time of the War Between the States.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:31 PM

By the way, regarding the 1860 election, Lincoln's name was not even on the ballot in nine southern states. But if Virginia, the only southern state where his name was on the ballot, was any indication, it probably wouldn't have made much difference since he only received 1.1% of the vote there.

Also by the way, I was having a hard time figuring out why South Carolina wasn't included on the table for the 1860 election. Yes, South Carolina was the first southern state to secede from the union, but that didn't happen until after the election. Then I realized that while secession ocurred after the popular election, it occurred before the Electoral College convened and, that's when the "real" election occurs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:54 PM

Ah. Interesting.

I find it utterly extraordinary that electors have, on some occasions, voted against the popular vote in their state. I would think it would be considered tantamount to treason to do that, but apparently not. The system must have been intentionally set up at the beiginning so that if the common "rabble" got too far out of hand, the people really in charge (the political aristocracy) could still take steps to arrange things in a more copacetic fashion...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:26 PM

Yes, one of the interesting quirks of the presidential election system is that while it's a federal election, and the electors are performing a federal function, the specifics of how they vote is determined by state law, not federal. Whether a state gives all its electoral votes to whoever gets the majority of votes in the state or whether the votes are distributed proportionally, and whether electors are bound by popular election results or are free to cast "maverick" votes is determined at the state level.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:57 PM

"I find it utterly extraordinary that electors have, on some occasions, voted against the popular vote in their state. I would think it would be considered tantamount to treason to do that, but apparently not."

That is one of the great features of our system. We elect individuals, not opinion polls. Of course our problem is too many politicians depend on the polls and pay more attention to them then common sense.

In the long run, it is a good system - with flaws but with checks and balances that can work. It isn't as draconian as some would like to paint it out to be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:08 PM

A counting of votes on election day IS a one-day opinion poll, Ron, and I believe it is normal to expect that the majority opinion of the voters would be confirmed at the end of that count, not denied by some elector for his own personal reasons.

It is not a great feature of your system that electors in some states are expected to vote as a bloc, it would be better if they voted proportionately, I think, to reflect the public vote in a realistic fashion...and it is even worse that they can be allowed in some states to contradict the majority opinion of the voters who just voted...if they feel like it.

I am not talking about responding to every damn opinion poll here, I'm not talking about bending every time the wind blows, I am talking about honoring an empirical election day result!

What the hell is an election even FOR if the people's votes don't count in some cases?

I'm saying that your whole system of electors is badly flawed, and that should be changed. It should be made unconstitutional for an elector to defy the will of the people he has been appointed to represent.

I'm also saying that Canada has some of the same problems. Namely, we don't have proportionate representation (which means that smaller parties are effectively rendered completely impotent)...nor do we have an instant runoff system of voting. As such, our system is badly flawed as well.

The people in power (who are the major parties) don't wish to see any of this changed, ever, because they are the primary benefactors of the system as it presently exists. Why would they change it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:24 PM

Here's a fascinating little summary of the 1896 election from that site:

"William McKinley received the nomination on the first ballot at the Republican convention in St. Louis, in June of 1896. William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska won the nomination of the Democrats in Chicago in July. The Democrat's plank supported the free coinage of silver. The currency issue dominated the election campaign. The campaign was marked by contrasts. Bryan criss-crossed the country making personal appearances. Bryan was accused of lacking dignity. Bryan answered that "I would rather have it said that I lacked dignity than that I lacked backbone to meet the enemies of the government who works against its welfare from Wall Street". McKinley stayed home and ran a front porch campaign where thousands of people came to his home and heard him speak, In the campaign Byran was depicted as a "radical and socialist", while McKinley was called a "tool of business". McKinley raised 3 million (mostly from business interests) as compared to 600,000 raised by Byran. McKinley won the election. "


Read between the lines. Big Business won that election for the Republicans. It was considered "undignified" for Bryan to travel across the country and meet the people. Gosh, how undignified! He was depicted as a "radical and socialist" for not staying home, like God, and letting his worshippers journey to the temple instead. My, my.

Well, it is a lot easier to win an election in 1896 when you have $3 million to work with as opposed to $600,000 isn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:08 AM

The thing about Byan was, he was a kind of the Left-Wing-Religious-Wakko of his day, and his constituency was largely made up of supporters from the South. When Civil Rights legislation went into effect, the South changed both parties and wings. They are now the Right-Wing-Religious-Wakkos, but if the Dixiecrats came back, both wings would fit right in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM

Well, Bryan was certainly determined. He ran in a whole series of elections.   I think a "Left-Wing" wacko is usually someone who is opposing big business and attempting to secure worker's rights. That can't be tolerated! Such people are the devil's spawn. They must be stamped out by any means possible.

As for a religious Wakko, he's usually someone who has some beliefs that you don't, specially if you're not religious. ;-)

It's all in how you look at it.

Then you have Right Wing Wackos...and they are the types who serve as the official Black Sheep on this forum, so they are very, very easy to recognize, right? ;-) I know I don't have to explain how they are identified.

Nothing like a few good steretypes to drive the political dialogue....

What I find really intriguing is not how the South switched alliegiances, because it's obvious why that happened. No, what I find most fascinating is that the industrial northeast has switched alliances too. They used to usually vote Republican, right from Lincoln's time on (except in a few elections where the Republicans got simply massacred). Now the industrial Northeast usually votes Democratic.

What the heck was it that caused that switch?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:29 PM

If you want to understand the current political division in the United States, you need to go back to 1932. Franklin Delano Roosefeldt carefully separated-off every group possible and put them as members of his coalition. The vast majority of people he did not reach out to were White, Christian and middle class. The very rich are only about 1% anyway and despite being a huge source of campaign money, they are almost as likely to be Left politically, often Socialist.

William Jenning Bryan illustrates why the Democrats couldn't win a job as dogcatcher from about 1860-1932 (yes, Wilson won, but he did not start the trend toward the Left). Bryan was a religious zelot was fought for Creationism (and won) in the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial". He was a Socialist, which is what most liberals want remembered, but he was also one of the loudest voices for prohibition which was eventually accepted. It was a huge disaster.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:52 PM

Bryan's an interesting case, all right. They should make a new movie about him. It would be quite a story, I should think.

I think most liberals and conservatives would find some things they liked about him and other things they did not.

pdq, my impression is that the vast majority of people in North America ARE White, Christian, and middle class. Most of the people I ever knew when I was growing up were (whether they took their Christianity very seriously, of course, was another matter, but they were nominally Christian in origin). Most of the people in Canada are. Nevertheless, Canada is a rather liberal place by USA standards, and a place with a socialist party that gets seats in every election.

I don't think FDR could possibly have been elected with a huge majority had he not had the support of a majority of White, Christian, middle class people. Therefore, I think your suggestion that he did not have a significant proportion of their support must be in error.

The reason the Democrats could not win most elections from 1860 to 1932 had its origins in the Civil War. In the election campaign of 1860 the traditional Democratic Party base tore itself apart over the issues of slavery and state's rights. It sundered into different parties with different leaders, and the Republicans, taking a strong anti-slavery stance, remained united, walked away with the election (because their vote was not divided between different coalitions, which the Democratic vote was).

The only place the Democrats had unquestioned support in after that disaster (for them) was in the South, and the South was going through reconstruction after the war and was always a minority voice in USA politics from then on. It took the Democrats a very long time to recover from those national events. They basically had to wait until the Republicans screwed up so badly as to totally ruin their chances with the electorate.

Something like that always happens eventually with any party that's in power too long. They screw up really badly at some point. And then the worm turns.

New England is mostly White, Christian, and middle class. Why have they been voting mostly for the Democrats for so long now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM

Little Hawk,

I said "The vast majority of people he (FDR) did not reach out to were White, Christian and middle class" and that is what I meant. That group is still the heart and sole of the Republican party, with Athiests, Jews, Blacks, illegal aliens, truly poor, recent immigrants, gays, and a few others often voting around 90% for Democrats. The FDR coalition will net the Democrats about 41% in a presidential election and it does not have anthing to do with the quality of the candidate.

The point about Bryan is that his coalition was as asinine to most Americans as FDR's was brilliant. Bryan's people wanted to take away my right to have a drink. They also wanted to make it a crime to teach evolution in science class. He and his Socialists planned to confiscate real and personal property "for the greater good", which always mean "for them". Yes, the Democrat coalition of his time was confusing to the American people and more than a little bit un-constitutional. The amount of money McKinley spent and where if was sourced is typical sour grapes. People did not want Bryan, it's that simple.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:12 PM

I will never take away your right to have a drink, pdq! ;-) By golly, I can see why you don't like W.J. Bryan.

I understand your point about the class thing. Don't you think, though, that the Republicans have to some extent deliberately alienated some of those groups you mentioned, and done it in order to court the votes of frightened White, middle-class, Christian (meaning Protestant) Americans who are scared of "those people"?

I do.

So both the Democrats and the Republicans have, in effect, used "divide and conquer" tactics. They have used the fear of one group to get the votes of another group. They have just aimed those tactics at different constituencies.

Note too, how when the Republicans get into office they go to great efforts to find someone who is Black for an important cabinet position. This is downright funny, because it's so transparent why they do it. They do it because virtually no blacks in the USA are voting Republican, and they want to prove something...so they cherrypick a handful of high profile Blacks like Rice and Powell, etc. to show that, hey, we Republicans are really on the side of Black Americans....yeah, right! Suuuure you are... ;-)

I think the Democrats and Republicans are equally slimy and disingenuous when it comes to that sort of thing. They will happily use the fear of one part of the public against another part of the public to feather their own nests.

Anyway, I'm gonna go read up on "Scopes-Monkey" and see what exactly they were arguing about. In detail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:19 PM

Little Hawk...that post has nothing I can disagree with...scary, eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:28 PM

Geeze, pdq... Why not throw in rapists, thieves and communists as Dems, too???

But nevermind all that...

Good site, LH... Yeah I had forgotten just how Lincoln had won that election and now it all comes back to me...

But what I hadn't forgotten was that Lincoln was IMO thwe worst preasident the US ever had... The Civil War (which it wasn't) began shortly after his inaguration.... He had choices to make just as George Bush ahd choices to make in regards to Iraq... The both made very bad choices...

What I find incredulous about Lincoln is the sanitization of what he did... I mean, why can't we tell the people the truth??? I don't wnt to have mythology shoved down our kids throats as if it actaully did happen the way the revisionist wished it had happened...

Like what good is mythology??? How does it play into Jefferson's thinking that democracy can only thrive if the people know what the heck is going on???

The mythology tends to be applied to those presidents who screwed up and got us into meaningless or immoral wars... Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy and now Bush...

Who knows... Maybe in a 100 years the revisionists will be telling folks that Bush was right up there with Lincoln... Hey, in my book, he's allready there...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:42 PM

No....I don't think so. Bush will have to win this war to be seen in the future as a hero for fighting it.

If Lincoln had lost the Civil War, and the Confederacy had thereby remained a separate nation, he would be reviled to this day as the biggest failure in American presidential history.

The Vietnam War hurt Johnson and Nixon very badly too...simply because they could not win it.

You have to win a war to be adulated. Lincoln won his war. (Given the industrial power and manpower of the North, he was almost bound to win it...I'd say that the South had a 1 in 10 chance of surviving that war as an independent nation. The fact that they had some very good generals in the Army of Northern Virginia was not enough to save them. The Union eventually found some good commanders too.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:14 PM

Yeah, okay, LH... Maybe???

But what I am becomin' icreasingly uncomfortable with is just how many revisonists are on the governemnt payrolls these days... This scares the Hell out of me...

I 'mean, they have allready revised the reasons for the Iraq invasion so many times it's hard to keep up but whatever the last reason was is the "real one"... We din't have that with Vietnam... No, it was always the "domino theory" from day one un til that fatefull day when folks were trying to get on that last helicopter in Saigon...

Now we have had at least a half a dozen reason for we invaded Iraq and being the cynic I am, I am fearfull that the revisionist will somehow figure out out to forge a "victory" out of what is probably the US's greatest defeat...

That's what I mean by mytholgy... Mythology ain't history... Who is to say that Lincoln won the "Civil" War??? Look around you and look at the Southern Stategy... Some wars take years, generations or centries to get sorted out... I believe the "Civil" war is one of them wars...

Appomatox might one day just be looked upon as a manuver???

Yeah, I know this is a strange concept but if you look at the presidentail elections foing back, ahhhhh, forver, the Southern Strategy has elected more presidents than anything else...

When folks say "The South will rise again", especially here in the South, they mean it...

As fir Nam, had Keenedy lived he would have had to take the loss... KInda like a baseball pitcher who turnes a losing game over to a relief pithcer... Lyndon Johnson didn't loose the Vietnam War... Richard Nixon didn't loose it either... The war was lost on Day One...

Iraq was lost on Day One...

The Civil War was Lost on Day One...

The Mexican War and the Spainish American Wars weren't really wars in the same respect as the Civil War, Nam and Iraq... Those were nutin' but imperialist bullying...

That's the way this ol' hillbilly sees it, anyway...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM

I agree that Veitnam and Iraq were lost on Day One, but the south could have done better in the Civil War if they would have sued for some kind of political settlement early on, I think.

               Getting back to the political shift of power in the American Northeast, I think the scenario goes like this. (1) There were some political and economic interests in taking America to a market driven economy backed up by a powerful military that began to flex its muscles immediatley after the Korean War. These forces manifested themselves in the form of the John Birch Society and the nomination of Barry Goldwater to run for president. (2) Goldwater lost badly in the general election, but the forces for huge corporate profits did not go away. (3) Following the concept attributed to Vladimir Lenin--though I think there is some revisioinist history here too--the corporate powers hit upon the idea to the "useful idiot." (4) By incorporating the useful idiots of America into their constituency (i.e. folks hopelessly addicted to the ancient superstition of Christianity), the approached sleaze-balls like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Dr. James Dobson, and with their television broadcasts, these slimy power brokers did the rest. (5) That brought us Ronald Reagan, a man who was so incredibly stupid he didn't know which ancient superstition he was addicted to, but he was sure he must be addicted to one of them. He was a movie actor and acurately read script that showed up on his tele-prompter, and was subsequently elected.
             At the end of the day, the people in the Northeast were too well educated and too sophisticated to fall for such insulting buffoonery, and started voting Democrat.
                And there you have it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:22 AM

Well, Rigins-eter, if you recall, the educated men who fought in the war were either killed off or if they did survive didn't have any power...

The Northern armies moved into the South, ran the governemnts, purdy much ran every thing in what was called the "reconstruction"... Problem is that there wasn't much in the way of reconstructin', just catrpetbaggers and Union armies kinda rubbin' Appomatox into the South...

It wasn't until the the 1876 Hayes/Tilden election where a deal was cut between the Northerners and the Southerners which allowed Hayes, who prolly didn't actually win the election over Tilden (sound familiar) to become president in exchange for the removal of the Union troops from the South...

At least, that's they way I remeber it...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM

Bobert - Yes, you're right about all of that. I was just trying to make the point that the South probably would have faired better if they had sued for some kind of peace right after their early victories instead of allowing themselves to be drug into an extended conflict where the industrial North had all of the advantages.
                   One thing that's always bothered me is, why would poor southerners who had nothing to gain from slavery, and, in fact were economically punished by the existance of the institution, fight so hard to perserve it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM

Ya' can't sue the governemnt unless the governemnt wants or allows you to do so... That was the problem the southern states had during the reconstrction... They were powerless and it wasn't until the election crisis of '76 that they had any type of leverage...

But yeah, could we change history I'm sure that both Lincoln and Davis would have played their cards differently... Just as George Bush most certainly would do if he could...

That's the problem I have with Lincoln in particular... Great leader he was not... Great leaders don't have "civil wars" or "wars of choice" (Iraq) under their watch... They figure out alternatives... Taht is what makes them great leaders...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:51 AM

But, of course, the winners write the history books.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 12:46 PM

Exactly my point, Rigs...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM

I think the South had a golden window of opportunity to win the war on one occasion: immediately following Bull Run, the first large battle of that war. The Union Army fled in panic at the conclusion of Bull Run, and there was effectively nothing standing between the Confederates and Washington. Had they moved without hesitation and occupied Washington, they could have dictated terms to a stunned Union. They could have secured Southern independence at that moment, and with very minor loss of life on both sides.

Even as it was, many in the North were calling the war "lost" in the panicky days following Bull Run....but the South did not move decisively to capitalize on the situation. They were content with simply winning a tactical victory on the battlefield.

They should have gone straight for the jugular, and they could have. If they had, Lincoln's presidency would have gone down in ruins, and there would have been 2 American nations after that, not one.

And in that case....there probably would have been some further wars between those two farther down the line. What that would have led to is impossible to say. They would certainly have gotten into loggerheads over western expansion into the territories and various other issues as time went by.

The smartest thing the South could have done, had they secured independence, would have been to work for a close alliance with the British Empire, thus hemming the North in between themselves and Canada. ;-) It would have served the interests of the South and Great Britain quite well to do that, and it would have profoundly changed the history of the entire world in the process.

As for slavery, that was an institution that wouldn't have lasted much longer in any case. It was on the way out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM

"As for slavery, that was an institution that wouldn't have lasted much longer in any case. It was on the way out."

            LH - That's absolutely true. Could you imagine any industry that could use slave labor effectively now? There might be a few--textiles comes to mind--but not very many.

            In any event, I think Bobert's point was that Lincoln was not a great leader. One element that has always bothered me about Lincoln was the maturation of the Republican Party. Since Lincoln we have only had Democrats and Republicans to choose from, in any real sense, and that's bothered me for a very long time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:59 AM

I don't think Lincoln was a very good leader either. He just happened to BE president during the USA's most disastrous war, and his side won. That would guarantee him being turned into a hero in the history books. That's how it works when you have wars and you win them. When you lose them....not so good.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:04 AM

Interesting that all these whites can blithely make the statement that slavery was on the way out in 1861. Perhaps some of you would like to tell blacks how much longer you think they should have waited. Also perhaps you'd like to explain to the rest of us untutored masses why, if slavery was on its way out in 1861, the South seemed for some reason--rather strongly--- to believe that Northern attempts to restrict the spread of slavery were unreasonable. We can see with our wonderful 20/20 hindsight that an industrially based economy was obviously the wave of the future. But "on its way out" is a singularly meaningless phrase without a time line as to when it would be "out". Bush has been "on his way out" since January 2001. But he's managed to cause an amazingly amount of disaster anyway. I wonder how that happened.

And if Lincoln was not a great war leader, exactly what was wrong with his policy of removing military leaders if they did not win, until, as he said of Grant, as I recall, "He wins battles"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:30 AM

"amazing amount"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:10 AM

Yeah, 20/20 hindsight tells us that the CSA might have been able to take Washington on the heels of the 1st Battle of Bull Run...

I think the shock value of the battle on both sides kinda have both sides second guessing...

It sho nuff had all them socialites who had brought their picnic blankets in their carriages to observe the festivities in shock...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM

I've heard that highly emotional and reactive response on the slavery issue before, Ron, if anyone dares state that it was on the way out, but I'm not going to fight with you about it, because I was implying absolutely no endorsement of slavery in what I said, I was just making a neutral observation about what I feel was the probability of its survival for much longer as a viable institution in that era... As such, I'm merely speculating. I am not threatening the health and happiness of any Black people, then or now, in so doing. What's done is done. You had your Civil War and killed your 500,000 (or thereabouts). What I say now won't change it.

I think Lincoln was quite a good war leader, but a poor president in a more general political sense. He had the resolve and practicality to lead effectively as a war leader. He also had a political attitude which I think made that war inevitable.

Of course, you could argue that it was inevitable regardless...and you might be right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: GUEST,Pete Peterson
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM

The problem is that we're looking at the 1860 election, and Lincoln as a war leader, from the persepctive of 2007, not what they knew at the time. Between 1840 and 1853 the United States grew in size tremendously-- from Mexico to the south and west, and "from" Britain to the north. After 1867 the United Staes didn't acquire any more territory. (Seward's Folly, remember?) The South expected to acquire a whole lot more territory in the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico, much of which would be good land for slavery. If slavery was on the way out in 1860, you could not find any evidence for this in the writings of Toombs, Rhett and Yancey, to name some prominent Southerners who wrote on the subject. Lincoln took office already faced with secession-- not as a result of his policies toward slavery as such, but his policy on whether a territory could restrict slavery before becoming a state. He believed in the Union-- and believed that since the Union existed, that he had no power to interfere with slavery where it existed. To me, he did his best in a bad situation. I admire him greatly, if you can't tell.
And the quote about Grant as I remember it is "I can't spare the man. He fights." (this at a time when Grant had tried seven times to caputre Vicksburg and failed each time)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:37 PM

Yes, that's true, Pete...going by what they knew at the time there would have been very few, if any among them, who had an expectation that slavery would be rendered economically unviable not too far in the future. It's just like there would have been very few among us in 1984 who thought the Soviet Union would collapse. People don't generally see what's coming, they live in the consciousness of what they are accumstomed to.

So as you say, perhaps Lincoln did do his best in a bad situation.

As for Grant.... The Vicksburg campaign was a tough one. Grant was not the type to quit, and that's what made him so valuable for the North. He just kept grinding on. Given his great superiority in manpower and munitions, that was what was needed to win....simply a man who wouldn't quit when the going got tough. And it sure got tough!

Sherman and Sheridan were also extremely effective commanders with similar tenacity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM

Lincoln a "poor president in a general political sense". Evidence please--with specifics.   As opposed to speculation as to how things could have been different. Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 28 September 10:40 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.